I'm sorry but again, those aren't even valid questions. Why should I believe that you have a better understanding of evidence than the FBI? Why should I or you think they don't have a strict media policy and why should I or you think they didn't follow it?

You didn't find any public information on an ongoing FBI investigation?? That's a real shocker alright.

lol I did the same thing. Herschel Walker may be a lot of things, but he's not someone you want to sexually assault and live.

Schlapp being in the closet has been an open secret for awhile. Least surprising story.

I would definitely want to see the following press conference.

I'm going to summarize what the question was asked before answering. Just want a handy reference to minimize any possible disagreement in subsequent posts.

This specific discussion topic started about here

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by RainMaker View Post The Vox link talks about some old tax crimes and lying on a gun permit application. Absolutely nothing to do with the laptop.

Quote:

Sure it did. The Vox article quote below indicates there was in investigation to money laundering and unregistered foreign agent. Foreign influence peddling and whether Joe was involved somehow is what the investigation should be about. The laptop contains emails/documentations that refers to this.

Then to the question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post The GOP will differ on your assessment and definition of "convincing evidence". Just like the Steele dossier when the Dems had control of the House. Non-evidence is kinda leading here. I don't concede that at all. I'll use possible evidence instead. So yes, that is one of my questions. Why didn't the FBI, which already had an active investigation going on, review the contents of the laptop between Dec 2019 and Oct 2020. And if they did, they would have found possible evidence related to their ongoing investigation. So why didn't they act on it.

Quote:

What evidence was there to act on? It seems like they had a broad investigation into him and couldn't find anything to charge him with besides lying on a gun permit and paying his taxes late. You keep talking about how this laptop has incriminating stuff on it. Can you post it like you said?

As a preface & caveat, I did not say "incriminating stuff". I said "possible evidence" which, in my mind, has a lower bar.

Next post on what was found on Hunter's laptop and how it tied to the original & ongoing FBI investigation.

On additional details on what was found on Hunter's laptop. See link below for more details but I'll list the email/docs.

https://nypost.com/2022/10/07/the-la...-hunter-biden/

1. 10% cut for the “big guy” deal - this probably does refer to Joe. However, I doubt Joe wanted or knew about this. My guess is Hunter was going to pocket the additional 10%.
2. $10 million for “introductions alone”
3. A $1 million retainer
4. $1 million a year to sit on a Ukrainian board
5. A 2.8-carat diamond gift
6. Pursuing deals with Mexican billionaire
7. $142K Fisker sports car scrutinized
8. Boasting ties to White House and China

There is not enough details or findings on whether any of the items are legal or not, ethical or not. However, these are large sums of money (and equivalents) and if I was FBI in charge of investigating Hunter on tax evasion, money laundering and unregistered foreign agent, I'd want to take a deeper look into each. My guess is many of above falls under the suspicion of (1) failure to register as a foreign agent and (2) tax evasion.

It sucks that rich, well-connected failsons make money off their parents names, but it is unfortunately not a crime in this country.

Won't know until you investigate.

That's what you want isn't it. To investigate the Top 1% even more?

They spent 4 years investigating him man. They were digging up old gun permit applications and trying to extort Ukraine for dirt. If they had anything at all, they would have charged him.

If we are talking about the original, ongoing investigation see below quote from the Vox article I posted earlier.


So FBI thinks there's enough. US Attorney is not convinced (yet).

I googled on Weiss and Hunter, I've not seen any recent reporting so not sure what the hold up on the decision is.

Then arrest him for lying on his gun permit application. Why do we have to care about Joe's junkie kid? I literally don't care what happens to him as long as people stop trying to get me to see his cock.

Bill Barr's justice department, with President Trump begging them to do so, did not find enough evidence to charge Hunter Biden with a crime, but the partisan hacks of the House of Representatives will. Is that the premise here?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Not quite.

Let me get a cup of coffee first.

Before answering GD, I'm going to re-state my position, some basic facts and copy-and-paste for you and other possible new joiners.

*****

There is already an ongoing Hunter investigation by the FBI, Delaware, IRS. The Vox article stated the FBI believe they had enough evidence to indict (around Oct 2022) but it is currently with US Attorney Weiss to make a decision. The Vox article is below

Will Hunter Biden be indicted? - Vox

The "Hunter laptop" is separate but related to original investigation. The question is why there hasn't been an investigation to the Hunter laptop. The theory is the FBI (and possibly others) is suppressing the investigation to help Joe.

With that preamble, let me summarize my understanding of the situation and my questions:


There's a timeline of events re: Hunter's laptop here Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next. Which leads to another question regarding the FBI's role


I support an investigation to answer the above questions (and admittedly, speculations) but don't think we'll get a special counsel investigation on Hunter's laptop. So that leaves a GOP led congressional investigation.

And this is my best guess on the outcome


I also think there is a fair chance any investigation will bring out that some elements of the FBI was suppressing the laptop & contents between Dec 2019 to Oct 2020.

Per my recap post immediately above & the Oct 2022 Vox article, there is an ongoing investigation on Hunter and the FBI department believes they have enough to charge Hunter with a crime(s). It is currently with the US Attorney Weiss to make a decision. As far as I can tell, this ongoing investigation does not include Hunter's laptop.

The Hunter laptop & contents were in FBI hands in Dec 2019. Guiliani broke the story in Oct 2020. Nothing was seemingly done with the laptop & content between Dec 2019 to Oct 2020. So the question is why hasn't the FBI investigated Hunter's laptop before Oct 2020.

To answer your question specifically, the premise therefore is: elements of the FBI has suppressed investigation into Hunter's laptop.

Sloppy is asking what evidence is there that FBI has not investigated Hunter's laptop. I'm researching that now and will have my response sometime soon.

Rainman has also asked, like you, why would a Bill Barr's partisan FBI dept not have investigated Hunter's laptop. My answer is below

I'll just repost my answer to Lathum. Also note, per our discussion, you are mischaracterizing it as just gun permit.

Absolutely agree. But do want more pics of just the women

So you believe the FBI openly refused to obey the AG because Trump hurt their feelings? Really?

I don't know about "refused to obey the AG". Its not clear to me if Bill Barr knew of the laptop and the contents during Dec 2019 to Oct 2020. And if Bill Barr didn't know, he wouldn't have given any orders for underlings to refuse.

(According to Bill Barr (I quoted him somewhere earlier), when Guiliani broke the story in Oct 2020, Trump pressured him about the laptop but he refused to get into it with Trump.)

I am saying the below:

It would be great if this really happened.

House speaker vote latest: Matt Gaetz threatens to resign as Kevin McCarthy stalemate enters fourth day | The Independent

Who's trying to get you to look at Hunter Biden's paint brush?

Much of what the Biden campaign asked Twitter to remove from its site were Hunter's dick pics found on the laptop. This is being used to broadly assert that Twitter "took orders" from Biden to suppress this entire story.

For the record, I am not claiming the FBI influenced twitter to suppress. And this is not the evidence of possible FBI suppression that I am currently researching (which I'll post about later today).

The twitter situation is too confusing for me and I haven't done the due diligence to understand it.

So the GOP gets a thinner majority than anticipated. The only thing that saved the majority was surprising wins by GOP NY moderates, and the voters overwhelming rejected Trump/MAGA candidates.

And the end result of this will be House leadership that is *more* beholden to the Freedom Caucus than if they had had a red wave?

I'm glad that I just shitpost on messages boards and do not have to actually understand this stuff for a living.

Right? And Boebert, who won what should have been a relatively easy district by like 500 votes, is out there front and center talking shit like she won Miss Universe. It's freaking nuts. But it's also consistent with the "small vocal minority pulls the strings" thing that's been happening in the GOP since Trump became popular.

Hmmmm, do we want a HoN political edition with "Miss Universe" Boebert?

NO

This sums up a good portion of the modern GOP:

This post is in response to Sloppy in our exchange.

The setup

I responded with below

However, the Sloppy's question is valid. What evidence is there that the FBI did not do anything between Dec 2019 to Oct 2020.

Below is my evidence (admittedly not "concrete" evidence but evidence nevertheless) the FBI did not review contents of Hunters laptop and/or if they did ... (they) didn't act on it

(1) Senator Johnson's letter to FBI on Aug 23, 2022. I'll strip out what I believe are the relevant sections

https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/se...7-900467F69E50

(2) Senator Grassley's on "The Continuing Justice Department and FBI Failure to Respond to Congressional Oversight November 30, 2022"

The Continuing Justice Department and FBI Failure to Respond to Congressional Oversight

There's a list but a couple that caught my eye


(3) Back to the question that Rainman & GD has asked about (paraphrased) and my answer


Let's add Timothy Thibault to the list as examples of underlings of anti-Trump within FBI that could have (but not proven) influenced the Hunter laptop investigation

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-...bault-resigns/

My personal analysis next

Sloppy wanted concrete evidence. I never said there was concrete evidence. So take the prior post and below FWIW.

In my research on


The various reports link back to the whistleblowers (plural). My question is who are they and are they credible.

One of them is certainly Isaacs, the repair guy that got Hunter's laptop. Isaacs is certainly credible on many Hunter laptop items but not credible on the inner workings of the FBI (other than what he claims the FBI told him)

Tony Bobulinski is also mentioned by Grassley but he is a disgruntled Hunter business partner. He may be a credible eyewitness to many of Hunter's events but I wouldn't consider him credible on inner workings of the FBI

In the Johnson letter in prior post, I quote below. Whistleblowers knowing what was (as claimed) stated at a local FBI leadership meeting, indicates these were internal FBI whistleblowers.

Quote:

... these whistleblowers stated that local FBI leadership told employees, “you will not look at that Hunter Biden laptop” and that the FBI is “not going to change the outcome of the election again.”

Bottom line. I don't know who the whistleblowers are or how credible they are. However, they got the attention of at least 2 senators (albeit, partisan senators). Also FBI agent Thibault resigned after Grassley accused him of "improper conduct" in the Hunter investigation, he claims he was already going to retire but just as likely he saw the writing on the wall and resigned before he was fired.

Is this enough evidence to warrant an investigation into how the FBI handled Hunter's laptop between Dec 2019 to Oct 2020. I would say maybe. However, the FBI has not answered the Senators' questions (after months) so yeah, let's do the investigation and see if the FBI is hiding anything.

Does it need to be a congressional investigation? No, but doubt a special counsel/prosecutor is forthcoming

Couldn't agree more.

It's about that time again. Excited to see if anything has changed.

What are the odds the they'll be "working" over the weekend? I know it is petty but I actually want that to happen. See who drops out to go home and maybe that'll change the dynamics some.

EDIT: Alright! 1 of the 20 switched to McCarthy. Some progress

Happy Capitol Riot Day everyone!!!!!

Well, we have at least 4 switches to McCarthy so far.

So we're back where we started on the first vote.

Edit: Just saw we have more switches

More of the 20 has voted for McCarty

Probable still not enough this time but in the right direction

There's little difference between the poll you linked and the Monmouth one. It shows a 3% movement among voters overall with a 2% margin of error. Even among independents it's only 7%, and there is some natural variance over time. Also of course that 7% is the point of greatest impact, with plenty of time to erode before the vote. If you look the tracking poll on 538 for generic ballot over the election: National : Generic ballot : 2022 Polls | FiveThirtyEight, you can see that the generic ballot lead for Republicans peaked early May, and reached it's low point in mid-late September, months after the press coverage of the hearings had receded.

It's more comfortable to imagine that investigations like this move the needle, but unfortunately all we can do is imagine it. The most we can say about the hearings is that they possibly contributed in a very small way to larger trends, but there's nothing that resulted from them that stands out from the normal political noise.

I won't push this any further - if you don't agree I accept that, but I don't see any good reason to think the hearings had a noticeable impact.

Gosar flips to McCarthy while in mid-discussion/apology to Gaetz. He looked like he was dragging chains as he walked up to announce it.

Ogles too. Now 6 left.

Gossar votes McCarthy. That seems like a big one. Also, what the fuck is up with that guys mannerisms? Freaking weird the way he moves his head.

The bad thing is, whatever they are promising some of these extremists can't be good.

If there are only 431 there to vote, he just needs 216, so he just needs 3 more to flip.

Waiting for him to backdoor slide in by changing the vote to a plurality.

Somehow, McCarthy is going to make it. He is going to be a completely empty suit Speaker, but he will get the office, the paycheck and the title in his obit.

So is anyone going to hold Gaetz to his promise?

Maybe he'll just wait them out. Wait for some Dems to be gone and get in with 215/216. But if the deal is that one member can call for a vote to remove the speaker I don't see how that is tenable. Gaetz could just immediately call for a vote.

I don't give Isaacs or Johnson the benefit of any doubt, but I do appreciate the work/references you provided, for whatever that's worth.

He said if they worked with Democrats to get a moderate elected. Unfortunately that did not happen.

Ah, I thought it was just if McCarthy ended up Speaker.

I'm posting this here because of his clear ties to, and attempts to emulate, Trump.

It appears Matt Bevin is going to run for KY Governor this year. The GOP field is especially crowded, and this guy was so unpopular he was the only GOPer to lose statewide office in 2019 (thank God). What a POS. I hope he comes in dead last in the primary.

At 2:45pm in the Capitol rotunda (primarily for space reasons and because some of you are probably tired of sitting on the floor outside the SOS office ��), I will share a few thoughts before proceeding down the hall…

— Matt Bevin (@MattBevin) January 6, 2023

How does this end? My guess is three vote present, and the rest flip.

One of the more high profile insurrectionists from West Virginia chose this day, January 6th, to declare that he is running for US Congress. He is the one that had been elected to the WV House and immediately was removed and was found hiding at his grandmother's house or something. Good to see he's learned his lesson. I doubt he'll get much traction because there is a relatively popular incumbent that is plenty MAGAish on her own, but it is still shameful.